Hi,
While I have not been actively posting here yet, I would like to respond
here (as my name got mentioned).
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
I had a chat about this with Zoe, Stephan (of symonfy fame) and Pierre
at IPC. In this discussion I got the following idea (note that I am
listing the names here in order to credit them in this idea, not because
they necessarily endorse it):
My name is Stefan Koopmanschap and I endorse this message ;)
As a side bonus, we strengthen UGs around the world. This will hopefully
lead to better communication channels between internals and active
community members. It will certainly ease the organization of future
testfests (or docfrenzy's) as we will then have contact people to talk
to as well as more of an incentive for people to join their local UG.
Being active in the Dutch usergroup, I am very much in support of this
idea. Usergroups as they are now are too vague in their role within PHP.
A lot of users that currently perhaps have great ideas for PHP would
have a local point to talk to. Aside from code/functionality, they might
also have an easier door towards contributing in terms of tests or
documentation. It's a win/win situation, where the usergroup is able to
more actively promote contributing to PHP itself as part of their more
closely bound role in PHP, and the users of PHP have an easier way of
giving feedback or offering their ideas.
I
would not want to try to come to a closed definition of what constitutes
a UG. Lets just create an interface were people can register their UG
and manage the email address for the contact person (and maybe a few
other things like their website etc). People can create physical UGs as
well as virtual UGs for all I care. If we notice that this liberal
approach gets abused (people faking UGs to get direct access and more
voting rights) we can decide on taking some protective measures. But for
now lets just assume that everybody in the community understands the
beauty of such a liberal approach.
I am not so sure about this part though. Even though I am not someone
who is usually for putting on this kind of limitations, the whole idea
of this second list is to have a more closed environment for discussion.
So taking some time to get to a clear definition (this could be a wide
definition) would help make it easier.
I do also think that not just usergroups but also the big projects (like
Drupal as Larry mentioned) should have a place in this. Similar to
usergroups, they could request access. As with usergroups, a certain
(wide) definition of which projects would be granted access should be made.
Given my above statement on limitations, I would even like to propose
making the second list a completely closed list. If someone that is not
on this closed list has an idea (s)he could post to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If the
idea is deemed good enough, a discussion on the closed list
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) could be started about the issue. The person posing
the idea could then (temporarily?) be added to the list to enable a
clear discussion of the facts.
In response to the question where patches should be sent to: I think
they should initially be sent to internal@ where, similar as to the
above idea, it could be picked up for discussion on the internals-core@
if need be.
The only thing I currently do not have a clear solution for would be the
distribution of a single discussion between the two lists. I do see that
this might become problematic though. Obviously, people responding could
reference to a http://news.php.net/ link to show what they are
responding to, but this (c/w)ould become quite messy.
My 2 cents,
Stefan
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
